It was announced just a few days ago that the next Doctor will be a woman played by Jodie Whitaker.
In my opinion this is the final nail in the coffin of Doctor Who. To me there is no way the show can recover now, but to be fair its not just been this single action that has sunk what was once the most wonderful of series.
Its been a long and slow process leading up to the time lords demise and in this article I am going to run through the 5 people who have contributed more to the demise of Doctor Who than anyone else.
Why A Female Doctor Kills The Show
Before we start I’d just like to establish why I feel a female Doctor is a terrible idea that could potentially sink Doctor Who. (If you are already that way inclined then I’d recommend just skipping this section.)
Of course feminists and virtue signallers will often just say that the reason I and others can’t stand a female Doctor is because we hate the idea of any women having leading roles on tv.
I do think its funny the double standard the way that those of us who don’t want a female Doctor are told we don’t like female heroes, but those who couldn’t bare the thought of the Doctor staying male aren’t treated as though they can’t stand male heroes on tv.
A female Doctor is ultimately a terrible idea for many reasons.
First and foremost a female Doctor simply doesn’t mesh with her male predecessors quite as much.
Throughout the entirety of Classic Who and most of New Who not only was it never mentioned that Time Lords could change gender, but all evidence suggested that they couldn’t. It was of course later rewritten that they could from about 2011 on, but more on that later.
We saw many Time Lords such as The Master, Azmahel, Morbius, Rassilon use up all 13 of their regenerations as men. Furthermore we saw many other Time Lords regenerate across old who, spin off material and new who and remain the same gender such as Romana (who regenerated 3 times), River Song, (who regenerated 2 times), Borusa (who regenerated 3 times) The Meddling Monk, The Rani, and K’Napo.
Also what about Susan, the Doctors Time Lord grand daughter and her human husband David?
Suppose she falls and bangs her head and then morphs into a 6 foot 7 burly man with a beard you could lose a badger in! That might make their relationship a bit awkward to say the least. Ditto the Time Lord who married the human Leela. What if he dies and regenerates into Lucy Lawless?
The Doctor and indeed other Time Lords on the show only ever acted as though they could become the same gender they once were.
Look at The War Games. The Time Lords give the Doctor several options for his third body and all of them are men. Wouldn’t there be at least one woman in there if Time Lords had no gender identity at all and didn’t have the same attitudes towards it that we did?
Similarly in Destiny of the Daleks, Romana tries on various new bodies and they are all women. So again why didn’t she try on a male body if time lords don’t have a gender identity like us stupid humans?
The Master, the Doctors archenemy meanwhile was a violent misogynist. How could that possibly be the case if he were from a race that has no gender? Technically the Master is as much female as male as hey, he could have been a woman in any of his previous 15 regenerations, yet he still acts like a human misogynist who views people as inferior because of their gender?
Furthermore it was also established that Time Lords have a complete control over their regenerations.
Romana had complete control over her regeneration into her second incarnation to the point where she could decide to look like someone she had met on a previous adventure. The Master also decides in the story Utopia that his next body is going to be young and strong when he regenerates.
Who would have thought the wife beater who hates women would actually choose to turn into a woman?
Even the Doctor himself, whilst he appears not to be able to control how he looks earlier in his life, by the time of 12 at least he is shown to have mastered this ability (with the implication being that his old faces were always chosen subconsciously anyway) This is meant to explain why in universe Capaldi played 2 roles in the series as he chooses to look like someone he helped years ago (played by Capaldi.)
Does this mean that the Doctor is a sexist then as he has always decided to look like a man both consciously and unconsciously? Even the wife beating Master beat him to being a woman first!
You could maybe argue that Time Lords might only be able to control their regenerations if they bring them about willingly, rather than through a violent death (though this is contradicted in the case of Jacobi to Simm.)
Still if this is the case, and most Time Lord’s appearances are random, then this is even more ridiculous.
The Doctor and the Master were men 14 and 15 times in a row by chance? Romana was a woman 4 times by chance? Rassilon, Asmahel, Morbius, were all men 13 times by chance? Borusa was a man 4 times by chance? How could that possibly be the case if there was a 50/50 chance of gender bending!
I’m absolutely fine with the idea that there are some Time Lords who much like human beings feel they were born in the wrong gender and then decide to regenerate from a man into a woman or vice versa. However trying to make out that every single Time Lord is non binary is stupid as clearly that’s not the case.
Now the primary reason that this is important isn’t simply because “oh my god it contradicts established canon”. Its because that clearly Time Lords were for almost 50 years not written as genderless characters as the writers had obviously never even considered making them so.
There are only two ways you can have a character change gender and have it make sense.
1/ write a character who is like an actual transexual, IE wants to change gender. Or 2/ write a character who is genuinely genderless. Brainiac from Smallville for instance changed gender and nobody complained as Brainiac was written as a robot who had simply assumed the form of a man to trick Clark, but he never actually acted like a man when he was himself.
Thus when his old body was destroyed and he took over Chloe, played by Alison Mack it flowed brilliantly, and not only did nobody say “OH MY GOD BRAINIAC IS A WOMAN, ITS PANDERING! The majority of people actually liked that story and praised Alison Mack’s performance.
Sadly however neither of these options is suitable for the Doctor or indeed any established Time Lord character. None of these characters have ever been written as someone who would want to change gender, whilst at the same time again none of them have ever been written as genderless characters like Brainiac.
Don’t believe me that gender flipped incarnations of Time Lord characters look out of place compared to the gender flipped Brainiac? Here compare the female Brainiac and the male Brainiac side by side.
See how they flow perfectly into one another?
Now take a look at 5 male incarnations of the Master and then compare them to Missy the female Master and honestly tell me in the comments below if you think she is even remotely believable as ANY of her male predecessors.
Try putting Delgado and Pertwee, Simm and Tennant, McCoy and Ainley in any of those scenes between Missy and Capaldi and try not to laugh. If you tried to do any Missy and Capaldi moments with Tom and the Burned Master meanwhile, it would be horrifying!
You can see how whilst Michelle Gomez is not even remotely believable as the being the same character as any previous male Master.
Many fans who are in support of a female Doctor will say “oh but Time Lords can change shape why not gender”, but that is not an argument.
Just because a character is a shapeshifter does not mean they have no gender. Does the Martian Manhunter have no gender? Does Mystique from the X-Men have no gender?
Also saying that the Doctor and Master can be anyone is just a gross misunderstanding of both characters. As I have said before there has to be a certain template to a character like the Doctor who constantly changes, as if not then the Doctor ceases to exist as a character. He becomes just a title. Tom Baker has even said this.
In an interview taken for the 1977 documentary Whose Doctor Who Tom Baker said that ironically the Doctor is in some ways the most limited role he has ever played as there are so many restrictions to what the character can be. The role of the actor playing the Doctor is to find something new to do within those limits.
Now the Doctor and the Masters gender are a part of the template’s of their character (same with Romana and Susan too) by default. Again as we have been over the only way their gender wouldn’t have mattered was if they were intentionally written as non binary which again they clearly weren’t for over 50 years. (In the Master’s case he was a violent misogynist!)
Of course those are my reasons as to why a female Doctor wouldn’t work, but other fans have different reasons.
For instance many have said that they feel that the Doctor was one of the few role models for young boys who didn’t use violence and was interested in science. Now personally I don’t think role models really matter. I’ve never had to identify with a character to enjoy them.
However it is a valid point to raise as ultimately the feminists who have been pushing for a female Doctor like Claudia Boleyn, always say its a great thing because it will finally be someone that young girls can look up to. Leaving aside the dozens of female superheroes who feminist fans completely ignore, if you are talking about making the Doctor someone people can relate too, then a female Doctor is the worst thing you could do ironically.
Young boys obviously can’t relate to her, but neither can young girls. She’s ultimately not a female character. She’s a man turned into a woman against his will, so presumably she’d have to act like a man in some ways to keep up consistency with her previous 13 male predecessors. So again she isn’t a character like say Xena, Buffy or the Charmed ones ALL of whom were very feminine, yet strong.
At the same time however she won’t be someone that trans people could relate to either. Trans people feel that they are born in the wrong body and so they go through a long, costly and painful operation to change gender. Time Lords meanwhile it has been retconned have NO gender identity and change in a flash.
They are actually the complete opposite of real life trans people and in no way bring to light the hard time trans people go through.
As you can see gender bending Time Lords bare more resemblance to this hilarious episode of Futurama where all the characters main genders are changed against their will, than they do real trans people.
A female Doctor is a terrible idea all around, but sadly a certain group of writers and fans have been pushing for a female Doctor and a female Master (though bizarrely enough never a male Susan, a male Romana, or a male Rani?) For their own reasons and have retconned the shows lore that all Time Lords are now non binary and apparently regularly gender bend.
The following 5 people however I feel had the biggest influence on bringing this crap into the show and thus must take most of the blame for its decline.
5/ Neil Gaiman
This acclaimed comic book writer began the whole female Doctor idea in the 2011 story The Doctors Wife.
Prior to this as we have been over Time Lords changing gender had never been a part of the shows canon.
The idea of the Doctor becoming a woman to be fair was mentioned in the press before. It first started when Tom Baker said it as a joke when he was leaving. Apparently he did it to wind up then producer John Nathan Turner (who later openly said that a woman should NEVER play the Doctor.)
However Gaiman was the one who retroactively rewrote the shows lore to make Time Lords non binary. Personally I think he did it to make himself into a Gene Roddenberry, Frank Hampson type figure.
For those of you unfamiliar with those two men, they were iconic sci fi writers (with Hampson creating Dan Dare and Roddenberry creating Star Trek.) Dan Dare and Star Trek both gave strong roles for ethnic minorities and women at a time when such a thing was almost unheard of. As a result of this both Roddenberry and Hampson are celebrated as liberal icons within the entertainment industry to this day.
Times have moved on however. Back in the 50’s when Dan Dare was first released, you could break new ground simply having a black character be Dan’s boss. However now in the 2010’s would anyone give a shit if the main characters boss was black? Would anyone care if the main character was black?
Similarly Gene Roddenberry could break new ground in the 60’s by having a black woman and a white guy just snog, but now does anyone even notice if there is an interracial love story like say Lister and Kochanski, that practically drives whole seasons of Red Dwarf?
However again people like Neil Gaiman I feel want to be seen as the big, liberal icon who challenged the sexism and racism around them like Hampson and Roddenberry. Thus Gaiman I feel saw a female Doctor as being his opportunity to make himself that.
In this case it wouldn’t just be creating a female hero. It would be creating a process that led to one of the most popular male heroes becoming female. Gaiman could then present himself as the progressive champion against the supposed sexists who didn’t want a female Doctor.
I might be doing Gaiman a disservice here. Until recently I used to see him as being somewhat more misguided than a poser, but it was after reading these interviews with him I started to see him as being more in it for his own ego.
You can see what I mean from those interviews its very much a “I’m going to teach you stupid little plebs about women” attitude from the way he tells us to “go out and hang around with women” or when he says that the Doctor should be strong minded, and brave, but that women can have these qualities too. Thank you Mr Gaiman I never knew that until you told me!
Now you might be thinking “well it was only one line, and it was vague, so that didn’t solely lead to a female Doctor”. However the thing with the SJW’s, who are the people who pushed for this the most. (I know some fans probably thought it was an okay idea, and were up for it, and that’s fine. But the people who REALLY pushed for it were the SJW’s who simply saw it as a victory without really knowing why.)
So yes the SJW where the ones who wanted it the most, and these people should NEVER be pandered too. Give them an inch (in this case a throwaway line) and they will take a trillion miles!
For ages afterwards SJW’s who wanted a female Doctor would always says “its canon that they change gender so it has to happen eventually.” Which they could only do thanks to Gaiman. Even then though I still think its weak as an argument. You could technically write in anything you want into Doctor Who canon as its not real, but that doesn’t mean its right for the show.
I could technically come in and write it that Time Lords can regenerate into Dinosaurs, or that they can fly and it would be canon, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t jar with everything that came before.
Still thanks to Gaiman gender bending Time Lords were actually part of the shows lore for the first time, and this just meant that the pressure for there to be a female Doctor became overwhelming when Peter Capaldi was cast.
You can argue that the SJW’s would have put pressure on Moffat to give us a female Doctor anyway regardless, and yes that’s true. They ALWAYS have to get their own way. Still Gaiman was the one that kick started all of this shit from Missy to Jodie Whitaker as the Doctor off.
It would be great poetic justice if some alt right writer came along and revived Gaimans most famous work, and completely rewrote its lore and all of its core characters to fit their divisive political agenda and then slandered anyone who didn’t like it.
4/ Paul Cornell
Now Paul Cornell’s role in sinking Doctor Who is more in relation to how he has behaved outside of the show.
I don’t like any of the episodes he wrote for the series, but they didn’t if I am being fair have any impact on the state of the show now.
Paul Cornell however was one of the most vocal supporters of a female Doctor. Now obviously Paul is entitled to his opinion (though I genuinely don’t understand how anyone who is actually a Doctor Who fan could say that they wanted a female Doctor?)
Still Paul was responsible for pioneering a lot of bad arguments for a female Doctor that ended up being picked up by the papers and a lot of the SJW’s.
Though these arguments were poor. They were more the type that are used to bully people into silence, rather than actually give a proper reason as to why a female Doctor is a brilliant idea, as they often just attacked and smeared people who were against the idea of a female Doctor.
First and foremost Paul called anyone who didn’t want a female Doctor a sexist.
Take a look at this quote.
“The absolute worst extreme of that trait is the sort of fan that thinks there shouldn’t be a female Doctor. They’re sure they’re good people, so there must, their reasoning goes, be a good reason why they feel that way. They’re not bigots, after all. They can’t be. So they find some very awkward ‘reason’ that can just about be made to sound okay. But it must be okay. Because they’re good people.
And they are good people. It’s just that good people sometimes express bigoted thoughts. I had a fanzine article published about why the Doctor should always be ‘a fair-skinned being’. I wasn’t a villain then, I was just infected by bigotry. Because we all are. It took many years, but I finally realised I didn’t have a good reason to think that. (I also needed to realise that admitting I didn’t have a good reason didn’t mean I was suddenly a horrible person, a fear that, I think, lies behind a lot of entrenched fan opinion about this sort of thing.) I was being a bigot when I said it, but I probably said something entirely sincere against bigotry a few minutes later. That’s how the vast majority of people are. These days the consensus is that it’s not okay to have any sort of reason why there shouldn’t be a Doctor Of Colour. That’s only become the case in the last two or three years. Though everyone is unconsciously pushing that date further and further back, to the point where soon nobody could ever have believed something as terrible as that. In a few years, it’ll be the same with the possibility of a female Doctor.”
As you can see here Paul is trying to slander everyone who doesn’t want a female Doctor as a disgusting sexist. Of course this isn’t the only time he has done this. After Dark Water aired and the overwhelming majority of people expressed anger at the Masters sex change, Paul Cornell took to twitter saying
“Anyone who doesn’t like their favourite character changing gender is exactly the type of person who would turn on their own family member for changing gender.”
Its disgusting to be honest that Paul would try and equate someone not liking the decision to turn the Master from the Doctors Moriarty to his sex kitten to someone actually rejecting their own son for changing into a woman.
Sadly however many other female Doctor advocates began to use similar arguments and it became more difficult to say you were against it without being slandered as a sexist.
Whilst Paul obviously didn’t create this type of argument he did popularise it within the Doctor Who fan community as he was a major figure with a large influence (as well as a close personal friend of Steven Moffat too.)
Furthermore Paul Cornell also pioneered the disasterous argument that “Doctor Who is all about change and therefore all change in it is automatically great.”
Paul often used false comparisons such as “Philip Hinchcliff changed things in the past, so those who complain about Steven Moffat’s changes now are the same whiners who complained about The Deadly Assassin”. I must admit even I bought into that crap for a while.
Its nonsense. For one thing the changes that were brought about during the first 4 Doctors eras were different as at that point Doctor Who was really establishing itself. In Hartnell’s time for instance we didn’t know anything about the Doctors people and we knew very little about his own personal history.
Therefore there were many gaps to fill. You weren’t going back at saying “hey actually it went like this instead”. Telling us his planet is named Gallifrey, his people are the Time Lords, that he left because he wanted to explore the universe, that he can regenerate and that he only has 12 regenerations doesn’t actually contradict anything that came before. It fills it in. Of course that’s not to say there weren’t continuity errors as there would be in any show that lasts for so long. Still the point was that at that stage the writers were really just filling the details in. The same is not true by Moffat’s stage.
Also though Doctor Who has a very flexible format that can allow it to change if need be, that doesn’t mean it should just change for the hell of it.
All of the previous writers were able to justify their previous changes. For instance, many accused Robert Holmes of rewriting the Time Lords society by showing them to be more corrupt than before. However Holmes justified in a letter to the fans with proper reasons rather than just abusing the fans as “ming mongs who don’t like change”.
Holmes explained that in his mind the Time Lords had always appeared corrupt and justified it with things like the fact that they had always had the death penalty (as seen in The War Games), the fact that their society had produced so many renegades and psychopaths like the Master, the Meddling Monk, The War Chief etc. Their hypocrisy in exiling the Doctor for interference and then sending him on missions to interfere, and even just the question of why would the Doctor want to leave Gallifrey, if it was such a perfect society?
Similarly Terry Nation justified his changes in Genesis of the Daleks by saying that before we had only heard a few scant historical records of the Daleks origins whilst Genesis gave us a first hand account. He also said that he felt Genesis explained why the Daleks had always behaved in exactly the same way, as they had been conditioned to by Davros.
Also its worth mentioning that Doctor Who is also actually a show with many traditions too. In fact one could argue that its its traditions that are the key to its success as they ultimately are what enables it to still feel like the same show in spite of its many changes.
The TARDIS is still a blue police box after 50 plus years, even though unlike Time Lord gender bending the Tardis’ ability to change shape has been established from the start. So why in a show that according to Paul Cornell is all about change is that thing still a police box? Added to that the Daleks have still met every Doctor onscreen (bar the 8th) the Cybermen, the Master, and UNIT have met almost every Doctor, other characters like Sarah Jane, the Brig, the Sontarans, the Ice Warriors, have spanned many Doctors too.
The Daleks also have the same basic characterisation. Yes other writers have added to their characters over the years and that’s fine. However their basic characterisation of despising all other life forms and being pitiless conquerers has remained the same. As by the way has their basic design too.
The Cybermen also have always remained the same emotionless machine creatures, who want to convert people into members of their own kind.
Even the Sontarans have the same design and personality of being extreme war mongers.
So why have we kept all of these traditions if in Paul’s mind there are no constants in the show?
A change should only happen if there is a proper justification for it. Sadly however as we have been over there is no reason at all for a female Doctor and plenty against it. Paul Cornell knows that however, but he still wants to push it for his own agenda. Much like Gaiman I suspect he wants to be seen as the Hampson, Roddenberry style, wise man who fought against prejudice of his times and will be revered years from now. The reason I say that about Paul is because any interview he gives about feminism or a female Doctor, or representation its all about how great he is compared to the disgusting sexists in the industry about him.
See this quote here
“I think he’s a great choice!” Cornell enthuses, “I would’ve preferred a woman though… I got really annoyed at lots of my friends in the Doctor Who fandom, I’d no idea they’d react so conservatively and negatively to [the idea of a female Doctor]. They seemed to think it was okay to say an awful lot of s***.” Does he think we’ll ever see a female doctor? “Maybe! Neil [Gaiman] changed the world by including that one line in his script about a woman having been a Timelord before, so that opened up the possibility”
See what I mean its not about equality, or wanting to give women roles, its all about him looking better than the rest of us.
Sadly however Paul’s opinion became dominant, and this not only helped to lead to a female Doctor, but it also led to what can only be described as pieces of Doctor Who lore being vandalised in the Moffat era, because the attitude became “all change was good lets do what we want”.
So we got things like it being rewritten that the Doctor left Gallifrey because of the silly Hybrid story line, the Daleks suddenly having a concept of pity, the Master being in love with the Doctor, and of course the notorious Cyber Brig.
You have to like this, because Doctor Who is all about change and so therefore every single change is automatically brilliant. If you don’t like a beloved Doctor Who characters rotting corpse being ripped up out of the ground and turned into a Cyberman you are just an emotional conservative who would have hated William Hartnell becoming Patrick Troughton. That makes sense.
3/ Whovian Feminism
A blogger, this woman is to Doctor Who fandom what Anita Sarkeesian is to Video Game fandom (and trust me I don’t mean that as a compliment.)
Now I do think that the feminists and SJW fans played a huge role in the downfall of Doctor Who in general. They latched onto the show circa 2011-2012 and just like they always do, they complained it was sexist over the most petty reasons and slandered Steven Moffat in particular as everything horrible under the sun. Thus he began to pander to them at the shows expense.
However Whovian Feminism must take most of the blame for many reasons.
To start with she is the one who spoke to people involved in the show directly. People always go on about how Ian Levine had a negative impact on Doctor Who in the 80’s. For those of you who don’t know, Ian Levine was a high profile fan in the 80’s who became the show’s unofficial continuity adviser.
Many have blamed Levine for encouraging John Nathan Turner to include too many references to past stories which alienated new viewers. Many have also blasted JNT for giving too many interviews with the fans and caring about what they thought instead of mainstream audiences.
Yet somewhat hypocritically I haven’t seen anybody complaining about the writers and the directors from the new series meeting up with Whovian Feminism to give her interviews or even promoting her blog?
I might add that whilst Ian Levine has done some outrageous things, at the very least he has also saved dozens and dozens of 60’s Doctor Who stories from destruction, including the first Dalek story. Also Levine only became a part of the show due to his genuine encyclopedic knowledge of the series.
Whovian Feminism however has done fuck all for the good of the show, and only gets to talk to the makers of the series because of her aggressive political agenda where she smears anyone who doesn’t agree with her as a sexist, rather than because of her knowledge on Doctor Who. This is a woman who until 2015 hadn’t seen a single Colin Baker story.
She has clearly had more of an influence on the show than other fans. Obviously its makers have come to see her as representing what most people want and have therefore tailored it to please her and other fans like her.
Now Whovian Feminism to start with is desperate for a female Doctor. She has also labelled just about everyone who is opposed to it a sexist.
Take a look at this gem of a quote.
“Supposedly well-meaning observers always like to come in and say that hardcore fans simply won’t accept a woman portraying the Doctor. This attitude does both the show and our fandom a disservice. While there is always a smattering of assholes to prove this type of attitude does exist, they aren’t even close to a majority. And even if it were true, we should not let the direction of the show be dictated by the worst of its fans. If a misogynistic jerk who disparagingly refers to a woman Doctor as “The Nurse” says he’ll quit watching the show, he’s exactly the type of fan we should be proud to piss off. I promise, plenty of new fans (especially ones with disposable income!) are waiting in the wings to take his place.”
The best thing about this quote is how Whovian Feminism for all her talk of equality clearly is a class snob the way she automatically equates having a low income to being a sad, lowlife sexist and bigot.
I guess we don’t want any riff raff, or commoners watching Doctor Who cause they’re all such disgusting sexists eh Whovian Feminism?
Sorry ladies you’re not welcome on the TARDIS anymore. You don’t have enough disposable income!
Still you can see that Whovian Feminism is your typical feminist fan. She shouts down anyone who disagrees with her as being as a revolting sexist, she can never just like something, she has to take it over and make it all about her political movement. Look at what it says on her avatar picture that I posted above. “My fandom will be feminist.”
She’s also desperate to find sexism in anything she watches regardless of how benign it is.
She also best of all for all her talk of representation doesn’t actually give a damn about female heroes. How many articles has she written about great female led shows like Xena, Buffy, Charmed, Once Upon A Time, Ghost Whisperer, Earth 2, Star Trek Voyager, The Bionic Woman etc?
Instead all she writes about is a male led show, Doctor Who. I actually brought this up to her on twitter and all she could say back (aside from calling a random white dude and thus trying to shame for my race.) Was that she loves female heroes because she loved the Wonder Woman movie.
Yeah that doesn’t demonstrate an encyclopedic knowledge of female heroes Whovian Feminism. “I love the film that is currently out in the cinemas and everybody’s talking about!”
The fact that that was the first one she went too if anything shows she doesn’t have that great a knowledge on female heroes as the only one she could say she liked to discredit me was the current blockbuster.
Finally Whovian Feminism is also anti men. Though again she just claims that she is against the patriarchy take a look at this article where she says that men are just scared of women being cast in male led roles because of “fragile masculinity”.
Funny how she didn’t mention Brainiac from Smallville, an example of a historic male character who has always been played by men, being played by Allison Mack to huge success.
The reason for that is because Brainiac doesn’t fit her narrative, as the fact that nobody minded Alison Mack playing Brainiac shows that actually people don’t mind a male character becoming a woman in principle.
Its just as long as like any other change it makes sense within the story. The reason some of these other examples have not been popular is because they don’t feel like the same character anymore, as in the case of Missy or in the case of others like the female Thor they are filled with cringey SJW bollocks such as in this scene.
Then there is also her attempts to say a scene where all men are dismissed as egotistical and a character refers to being a woman as normal as not being sexist.
Imagine if a male character in Doctor Who had said that all women were stuck up bitches. Think she’d say it was okay because that guy had only met a couple of women who were full of themselves?
Whovian Feminisms constant obsession with turning male characters into women can also be seen as an example of her anti men feeling.
I always get the impression that Whovian Feminism, and indeed other people who have been pushing for a female Doctor and female versions of male heroes are more obsessed with taking roles away from men, and upsetting their fans.
I think its quite funny the way that the perception as you can see from the above tweets is that the pro female Doctor people are all nice, kind and progressive, and the anti female Doctor people are all nasty, sexist and horrible.
Compare the hatred from the above video, and the tweet about wanting Doctor 13 to upset certain fans to this post I found on a Doctor Who website against a female Doctor and tell me which side has the actual argument, and which side just wants to upset the other?
“I’m a twenty year old boy who has grown up with Doctor Who on VHS, witnessed the show’s triumphant return, despaired at the show’s terrible demise and am now apathetic as its mangled remains are pulled apart by a PC agenda.
I don’t want The Doctor to be a woman. This does not however make me a sexist, right-wing conservative. I am quite the antithesis in fact. I’m gay yet I have a massive issue with the ridiculous way Bill’s sexuality was handled. Yet should I voice that criticism, it is likely I would get blasted as a homophobe. In the same way I would be called a British elitist for my opinion that the Doctor should be played by a man from the British isles man. However I am far from that. I’m an Irish boy from Belfast, who speaks Irish and embraces his own culture yet this has nothing to do with what I want from an actor playing The Doctor.
The show is quintessentially British and therefore I wouldn’t want an American Doctor, a French Doctor etc. I’m not racist, in fact I speak French and immerse myself in other cultures. This same reasoning comes to gender. The Doctor is a man, and masculine traits are integral to his character regardless of different character traits found in different regenerations. Yet this does not make me sexist.
I would equally have a problem if Romana or Susan changed genders. In 2017, political correctness has gone absolutely insane, there is nothing wrong with wanting a male character to remain a male, regardless of how some will try to make you feel like a misogynist. When Richard Harris passed away and the role of Dumbledore was taken over by Michael Gambon everything changed, the character’s look and personality became something different.
The fact that the Harry Potter filmakers didn’t cast a woman does not make them elitist sexist pigs, but simply that Dumbledore is inherently a male character with grandfatherly qualities (not unlike the first Doctor) and changing the gender would not fit. In the same way, the Doctor is innately male. My biggest issue is that the decision to make the Doctor female is not for the benefit of the show, the only reason is to make The BBC look like the most progressive corporation around and score PC points with the media.
If the Doctor absolutely had to change gender, it should definitely not be at a time when the show is the worst it has ever been in 54 years. The show needs a return to form before trying something radical. Unfortunately for me, Doctor Who ended in 2010. The show bears no resemblance to the Dalek tin containing Remembrance of the Daleks and The Chase VHS tapes that mesmerised me when I was 4 and pales in comparison to the 2005 series that enchanted me when I was 8. At 20, my affiliation with the series is at an end, but that’s a fact that’s sadly been true since the 50th anniversary. 97 missing eps still to find.”
Baring all of this in mind Whovian Feminism is obviously the last type of person you should ever aim a series at.
To start with ironically she is the most non inclusive type of fan there is. She demands that the entire show be tailored to fit her political agenda. Even if its not right for a certain character, it doesn’t matter. Her agenda must usurp everything else, including decades of characterisation like in The Masters case and anyone who doesn’t like it (which is the majority of viewers judging by how many viewers the show has shed in Capaldi’s time.) Is not only no longer welcome in her fandom apparently, but should be abused on the way out as sexists and bloody little poor people.
Furthermore she is the type of viewer who is never going to be happy either. She wants to complain because its her bread and butter, so she’ll still find something to be unhappy about in the female Doctors portrayal.
Also and perhaps worst of all someone like Whovian Feminism advocates that people are not hired on merit but simply for representation. She not only wants women cast in the role of the Master and the Doctor just simply for her agenda, but she also wants women hired behind the scenes just simply to fill diversity quota’s. She has even promoted a petition to make sure that there is an equal number of men and women writing for the series.
Now whilst this might sound like a decent idea in theory its actually a terrible way to run a series. Ultimately you are not hiring based on talent, but just to tick boxes. You could get a fantastic script like say Survival from a female writer like Rona Munro, but you couldn’t use that script because you’d already taken in your set amount of female writers that year.
Furthermore you could obviously have a great script like say Caves of Androzani from a writer like Robert Holmes that you couldn’t use as you had your specific amount of male writers for that year.
At the end of the day people should only ever be hired based on their ideas and talent, NOT their gender and skin colour as Whovian Feminism advocates.
Yet sadly as seen from the interviews and promotion they have given her, the new who production team saw Whovian Feminism as someone who should be listened too, as well as the audience they are going for.
2/ Steven Moffat
Yes sadly I have to include him here.
For what its worth I used to like his era during Matt Smith’s time, but the damage he wreaked on the series during Capaldi’s tenure was too great.
I don’t think that Steven Moffat was desperate to prove how progressive he was. Sadly however I think he was bullied into making it ultra feminist by the SJW’s who launched an absolutely vicious smear campaign against the man from 2012 on.
They accused him of being a sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, ableist, etc. All of their accusations were hollow. Indeed they were often over the most petty things like Karen Gillan is too sexy, his female companions lives revolve too much around the Doctor, the companion is just a sidekick and should be as important as the Doctor etc.
Sadly however Moff took their criticisms to heart and began to write the show for the feminist/SJW’s. This affected the quality of the show in so many ways.
To start with Clara came to dominate the series. Not only did many episodes revolve around her and her place of work too much such as The Caretaker, Kill the Moon, In The Forest of the Night (all very poorly received stories), but they also bigged up her role in the continuity to an absurd degree.
She was retconned into being the hero of every DW story ever made, the reason the Doctor conquered his fear as a boy, the reason he left Gallifrey, the reason he undid the time war, the reason the Time Lords gave him more lives etc. And she even ended the series gaining her own TARDIS and becoming completely unkillable, thus making her a better Doctor than the Doctor himself.
All of this understandably made Clara one of the most hated companions in Who history. Nobody likes a side character who comes in, thinks they are better than the hero, is proven to be better than the main hero, and regularly slaps the main hero.
Then of course there was the Masters controversial (to say the least) sex change and her sudden infatuation with the Doctor as well as the constant anti men and anti white jokes all helped to drive people away in spades.
The viewers for Matt Smith’s last episode were over 10 million. By the end of Peter Capaldi’s last season they were down at barely over 2 million. Now it is true that viewing figures are down for tv in general these days, but still even with that Doctor Who has still suffered a catastrophic fall in viewers. 5 times fewer people are watching it now.
To be fair not all of Moffat’s problems can be blamed on his pandering to feminists. The Cyber Brig for instance, one of the most hated ideas in the history of the show (and with good reason.) Has nothing to do with pandering.
Still for whatever reasons Moffat managed to completely destroy classic characters like the Brig (who he gave an atrocious ending to), and the Master who he turned into a literal parody of himself.
Even if Chris Chibnall hadn’t cast a woman it would have been difficult to carry the show on after the damage Moffat had done, but still in spite of things like Missy and the Cyber Brig, Moffat incredibly enough isn’t the worst thing to happen to Doctor Who.
Sources to back up what I was saying about Moffat pandering to feminists.
In this video Mundane Matt says that Moffat at a convention said that a female Doctor would never happen on his watch back in early 2011.
Feminists slander Moff from about 2011 on.
2014 on we get a new Master who is a woman, as well as more examples of feminist pandering.
1/ Chris Chibnall
It takes some going to be worse than your predecessor before you’ve even produced a single episode (even more so when your predecessor is Steven Moffat.)
Still Chris Chibnall has managed it with his first ever move in casting a woman as the Doctor.
Now as I have been over a female Doctor is to me a terrible idea that completely ruins the show, but its also opened up a can of worms for whoever comes after Chibnall. What happens if someone wants to make the Doctor a male again? We are going to have to deal with the media and the Whovian Feminists saying Doctor Who is transphobic and taking a role away from women (ironically). So what will we have to have 13 women now? In that case the character is now completely different. Don’t even call it Doctor Who anymore because it has nothing to do with William Hartnell’s original character.
Also if we have cast a woman as the Doctor why stop there? Why not demand a black Doctor, an Asian Doctor, a French Doctor, an American Doctor etc. Not that I have any problems with those however, but the point I am trying to make is that we are now casting the role solely to tick boxes rather than because a particular actor is the best for the role.
All of these problems have emerged because of a single foolish decision on Chibnalls part. I don’t why he did it. If it was pandering to feminists like Steven Moffat, virtue signalling, or maybe even just as a cheap gimmick, but whatever the case Chibnall has as Ian Levine put it “put the final nail into Doctor Who”
I refuse to watch even a single episode with Jodie Whitaker. Nothing against her personally, but the show no longer feels like Doctor Who anymore, and I hate the fact that it is connected to it. Also I bitterly resent the fact that the show has been basically written for people like Whovian Feminism at the expense of mainstream viewers and lifelong fans because they basically shrieked the loudest.
In my opinion the show is not long for this world and if you want to blame anyone then blame these 5 people. Whilst the SJW’s wanted the show to be done their way, if it hadn’t been for the actions of these 5 individuals then Doctor Who would still be strong and healthy.
Thanks for reading.